Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in his original Answer the noble Lord mentioned children and "dependants". That is presumably a technical term that I and many other noble Lords do not understand. Could he explain what he means by "dependants" in this instance?

Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, I would like to clarify a point. When the national curriculum was established there were subjects that went up to 16, as the noble Lord well knows, and they were dropped in the mid-90s—by a Conservative Minister, because not all Conservatives are perfect. The disparity between the figures that the noble Lord has given today and the figures given to the House of Commons by his department is staggering. If he is trying to say that there is 100 per cent take-up of GCSE in secondary schools at 16, that cannot be the case. I think he will find that my figures are much more accurate.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am sure that we are all immensely grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating this enormously full Statement of intention and roundup of the Middle East situation generally.
	Obviously, it is welcome news that some of our brave troops are coming home. It will be particularly welcome to the families of those who are serving and have served there, and to the Armed Forces generally in their present state of chronic overstretch. It is equally obvious that the drawdown raises a set of vital questions, of which the first must be about the security and positioning of our remaining troops, for whom our admiration is unlimited. In the past three years since the invasion, the situation in Basra has declined tragically; since, if I may add a personal note, 2004 when my son served there and found a thoroughly co-operative and even friendly atmosphere. We are now told that after that serious decline, things are looking better again and that therefore troops can be removed.
	We all hope and trust that that assessment is right, when so many assessments about Iraq have proved wrong. I trust that there is nothing artificial or wishful about the discovery of improvements in Basra which allow the withdrawal. I hope and trust that our troops left there will be able to carry out their new duties of supporting Iraqi army training, border supervision and securing supply routes with reasonable, although obviously not complete, safety. We would value assurances on that. Above all, I hope and trust—we all need reassurance on this—that our troops will be properly equipped and not left, in the words of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, yesterday, when addressing the Global Strategy Forum,
	"at the end of their tether",
	and,
	"close to operational failure",
	through lack of the right equipment, sometimes even having to borrow superior kit from other forces such as, in one recent incident, the Estonian contingent.
	Turning to the overall situation, which the Prime Minister covered, can the noble Baroness explain exactly how we see our plans fitting in with current American intentions? We had the Baker-Hamilton report in Washington the other day, which called for much more involvement with neighbours and other powers in coping with the Iraq situation and for the more intensive use of diplomacy on all fronts. We agree with that approach. Yet the next moment we had the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary applauding the US Administration's decision not to follow that route but to send in 21,500 more troops to the Iraq maelstrom and to ignore the proposals for seeking closer linkages with neighbours such as Iran and Syria, as well as with other regional and world powers.
	We recognise the difficulty of dealing with Iran when its leader makes such wild and aggressive statements and it is right that if Iran is encouraging mischief-making in Iraq, as it certainly has been, that should be sharply and effectively confronted. Today is the UN deadline for Iran to suspend its unauthorised uranium enrichment activities. Will the noble Baroness confirm that we continue to put diplomacy and negotiation first in engaging with Iran? Will she confirm the UK's agreement reached last week with US Under-Secretary Burns, who took a very wise approach, that while using sanctions against Iran, the exit door should be kept open, everything done to keep contact with the people of Iran and diplomatic solutions sought?
	Speaking of sanctions, the one sort that seems to work in putting pressure on the Iranian leadership is the financial sort imposed particularly through the American banking system. What steps we have taken on this side of the Atlantic to persuade the European Union membership to follow suit?
	The Prime Minister also spoke of the Israel-Palestine situation, on which of course we all hope for progress, especially if Al Fatah and Hamas can sort out their differences. Are the Government still focusing, however, as much as I believe they should, on the critical situation in Lebanon, where Israeli, Iranian and Syrian pressures and ambitions all dangerously collide? Do the Government regret being quite so unequivocal in supporting the misguided Israeli strategy of smashing Lebanon to get at Hezbollah? What steps are we taking now to see that the legitimate Lebanese Government of Mr Siniora are not undermined by extremists and street violence, egged on by Iranian and Syrian resources, and carried through by the apparently undefeated Hezbollah movement?
	The Prime Minister talks in his Statement of "an epochal struggle" in the Middle East. These generalisations sound good, but in fact there are numerous complex and different struggles in the region, which need to be understood and dealt with in a whole variety of ways, mixing hard-power and soft-power methods. We on this side supported the decision to overthrow Saddam—although we were given faulty intelligence on Iraq—but the string of errors since then confirms our view that subsequent events have not been well handled; that strategy has not been clear, steady, or well thought out; and that very serious mistakes and omissions have occurred in the shaping of Cabinet decisions and of government policy at the highest level.
	That is why we think the time is coming for a full-scale inquiry into the conduct of the whole war operation. We note that in the USA several such inquiries are being held, uncovering new evidence, and going wider and deeper than the various reports we have been given, for example, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and others. We believe that we owe it to our brave Armed Forces, who are so dedicated and professional, to look frankly and honestly at the way in which things have gone wrong, so as to learn and apply the lessons swiftly. Your Lordships will debate this very issue tomorrow, when I hope this viewpoint will be endorsed and pressed home firmly.
	The vision of a peaceful, prosperous, western-model, democratic Middle East is, frankly, today as far away as ever. Perhaps it was too naïve a vision in the first place. We should certainly fight for our values and our security—we should fight not with slogans, but with subtlety, experience, understanding and dexterity. These are the qualities that have been missing in government policy.
	It is good that some of our brave troops should now be progressively withdrawn from a dire situation, in a dangerous region, which, frankly, will never be solved entirely by military force alone. It is bad, however, that there have been so many faults and impulsive errors along the way. The sooner we learn the full story, the full lessons from what has gone wrong, and how, even now, to help set it all on a more promising and constructive path, the better.

Lord McNally: My Lords, I, too, thank the Lord President of the Council for repeating this Statement made by the Prime Minister, giving his personal résumé of the history of Iraq over the past four years. I am not a marcher by nature, but I took part in the march against the war. I have to say that the Iraq adventure has produced chaos on a grand scale. On these Benches, we have no regret for condemning the policy four years ago, and for condemning it as a blot which will never be erased from the Blair record or the Blair legacy. However, on the Prime Minister's commitment to peace in Israel and Palestine, we fully support his commitment to establish a,
	"well functioning, independent and viable state of Palestine".
	We hope that during his remaining months in office he will continue to give priority to an Israel-Palestine settlement.
	On Iraq, however, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has indicated, there are many serious questions to be asked. How conditional is the timetable for withdrawal? The phrase,
	"as long as they are needed",
	keeps recurring. Will not the reduction in numbers, while leaving the remaining forces with a considerable task, continue to lead to the danger of overstretch? Let me remind the House of those tasks: training and supporting the Iraqi forces; securing the Iraq/Iran border; and securing supply routes. Those are the tasks listed by the Prime Minister in his Statement.
	I endorse the tributes paid by the Lord President and the noble Lord, Lord Howell, to our Armed Forces, but I still have in mind a speech made right at the beginning of this tragedy by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. On the eve of invasion he said he hoped that the politicians were as sure about how they were going to get out of Iraq as they were about how to get in. I fear that this Statement makes us no clearer on that point.
	I want to raise a side issue. Last night I was at the Royal Television Society's annual journalism awards ceremony. At the beginning they present a roll of honour of those reporters who have lost their lives during the previous year. It was chilling to note the number of journalists who have died in Iraq. This has been a war fought on our television screens and marks a contrast between what I can only say is the slightly rosy picture painted by the Prime Minister and the reality we see every night on our televisions. I have also watched the events at the other end of this place. When Sir Menzies Campbell called for a phased and timed withdrawal, he was hooted and howled at by the Labour Back-Benchers, and yet now the Prime Minister seems to be announcing his own phrased and timed withdrawal. The Prime Minister pays tribute to the Baker-Hamilton report, but surely that report has to be taken as a whole and should not be cherry-picked. How you can pay tribute to that report while in the same breath pledge full support to the Bush surge just seems to defy reason.
	I want to ask the Lord President about something that comes within her own particular area of expertise. The Prime Minister has spoken of a new and far more focused effort on reconciliation, reconstruction and development. Will DfID's strategy and responsibilities in Iraq be changed by today's announcement? Is there any intention to increase aid to Iraq on the reconstruction side to match the military withdrawal? It would be interesting to know the position on this. On the call for a full public inquiry, of course I endorse it and I am glad that we now have the support of the Conservatives. I note also that of the seven candidates for the Deputy Leadership, questioned in the Guardian today, two are now calling for a public inquiry. I wonder whether the Lord President agrees with them or with the three who said that they were too busy to answer the question.
	We share the concerns expressed about policy towards Syria and Iran, and wonder whether there are any further Government initiatives towards either country. In the past, with the Prime Minister in Syria and the Foreign Secretary in Iran, they have taken to direct diplomacy, and we certainly urge the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, about soft diplomacy. We continue to worry that talk still comes out of the United States that part of the final Bush legacy might be a direct attack on Iran. However, the real worry is that this Statement is not a strategy, it is a wing and a prayer, often at odds with the reality we see each evening on our television screens.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I will try to respond quickly to the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord McNally. I first want to tell the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that the security of our remaining troops is our first concern; he will realise from the Statement that the decision made has been based on conditions on the ground. I can also tell the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that we are not working to a predetermined timetable. The transfer of security responsibilities to the Iraqis is the ultimate goal, but that is based on what happens on the ground. Following Operation Sinbad, we believe that we can best create the conditions for that by reducing our footprint on the ground and focusing our efforts on training the Iraqi police and security forces.
	The noble Lord, Lord Howell, mentioned the equipment available to our Armed Forces. We take the protection of our servicemen and servicewomen very seriously. We have rapidly procured a number of vehicles to enhance force protection, while substantial improvements have been made in recent years to the standard and quantity of body armour available to armed forces personnel; commanders in Iraq now have a range of that. There are also, of course, our military aircraft, which are fitted with defensive systems and other aids to mitigate threats present in the operational environments in which they are deployed.
	On the Baker-Hamilton issue, and following down the diplomatic route, I constantly hear these arguments about the US and UK strategies being at odds with each other. We are at the point in Basra where we are able to talk about troop drawdown precisely because of Operation Sinbad and what it has been seeking to put in place. In Baghdad, the United States, with the Iraqi Government, is seeking to use the increased troop levels to secure and then to hold areas of the city to enable reconstruction to take place. These are not mutually exclusive things, but a recognition that the situation differs in the two parts of the country and that Baghdad is particularly difficult. Given that 80 per cent of the conflict occurs within a 30-mile radius of Baghdad, the city has to be made secure. The decision that has been taken is that it can be made secure only on the basis of additional troops.
	At the same time, there is of course a diplomatic route that we want to follow. Noble Lords will again know that the previous and present Foreign Secretaries, Jack Straw and Margaret Beckett, have been involved with EU colleagues in negotiating with the Iranians on their nuclear ambitions. In fact, EU foreign Ministers discussed Iran briefly at their meeting on 22 January, and with our full support they agreed that, in order to ensure effective implementation of the United Nations resolutions, the European Union,
	"should prevent the export to and import from Iran of the goods on the NSG and MTCR lists; ban transactions with and freeze the assets of individuals and entities covered by the criteria",
	in that Security Council resolution, and,
	"ban travel to the EU of the individuals covered by these criteria".
	Officials are drafting a common position to take that decision forward. I also want to assure the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that we are supportive of the Lebanese Government and the efforts that they are making, as the Statement made absolutely clear.
	We have already had four independent inquiries into Iraq: the Butler inquiry, the Hutton inquiry, the ISC inquiry and the FAC inquiry. I remember that everyone was very pleased when we first announced the Hutton inquiry but, because they did not like the outcome, they immediately asked for another inquiry. In answer to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I do not believe that we should divert the attention of those working on this critical issue by holding a further inquiry at this time. The time to make such a decision will be when all our troops have come home from Iraq. We are constantly learning the lessons of the conflict.
	The noble Lord, Lord McNally, raised a number of further questions and in particular said that the leader of the Liberal Democrats had developed his own plan for drawdown. In December 2005, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said:
	"It is our strategy to draw down forces and we don't want to leave people here longer than we need to. The whole process is to build up the Iraqi capability in the armed forces and police so we can draw down our own forces. The political aspect can only be buttressed by a strong security aspect increasingly taken over by the Iraqis themselves".
	That was the position in December 2005 and is the position now. We have made some progress in that some of that drawdown will begin to happen. However, I can assure the noble Lord that we will retain a robust re-intervention capacity.
	On Baker-Hamilton, the noble Lord may recall that, at what was seen as great personal political risk, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister invited the President of Syria to the United Kingdom in 2002. Indeed, he was criticised by many for seeking to engage through diplomatic channels with Syria. That engagement broke down subsequently but we will continue to go down the diplomatic route.
	We will continue to work closely with the Iraqi Government on reconstruction and development. Our total pledge for humanitarian and reconstruction aid for Iraq for 2003-06 was £544 million; a further pledge of £100 million was announced by the Chancellor in late 2006; and over the next year the Department for International Development's water and electricity projects will improve access to water for 1 million people living in southern Iraq and a further 328 megawatts of power will be added or secured to the Iraqi national grid. With the work already under way, this will help to supply almost 1 million people with 24-hour power.
	We intend to continue to work in partnership with our colleagues in the multinational force and the Iraqi Government, but bringing our troops home when the conditions are right is also an important element of the strategy.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I think that we all recognise that having our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq is a situation that would be difficult to sustain over the long term. That said, we all commend what our troops have been doing in theatre in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we will continue to look at the force levels in both those countries because this is about the conditions on the ground and the support that we need to give our troops to ensure that they are able to function effectively.

Lord Kingsland: moved Amendment No. 112:
	Schedule 15 , page 212, line 16, leave out sub-paragraph (2)

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for giving me the opportunity to talk about the role of the OLC. As he said, the amendments are similar to those in respect of the Legal Services Board which we debated on the first day of Committee. Let us be clear that the OLC is a completely different organisation from the LSB. First, it is subordinate to the Legal Services Board; the Legal Services Board approves its budget and its rules. Secondly, it will not be involved in the regulation of the legal profession, so concerns about its independence are different from those which were expressed in respect of the Legal Services Board.
	The role of the members of the Office for Legal Complaints will be to make rules about how the complaints scheme will work; to appoint the chief ombudsman and any assistant ombudsman; generally to run and manage the organisation in which the ombudsman and caseworkers will work, including managing the budget that has been agreed with the Legal Services Board; and to prepare the annual report on its performance of those functions.
	Looking at the two amendments in that context, at the moment we have set the size of the Office of Legal Complaints at between six and eight members plus the chairman. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 15 sets out a list of nine areas of which we consider it desirable for members of the OLC between them to have knowledge or experience—the handling of complaints, the provision of legal services, legal education and legal training, consumer affairs, civil or criminal proceedings and the working of the courts, the maintenance of the professional standards of persons who provide legal services, non-commercial legal services, the differing needs of consumers, and the provision of claims management services.
	While we hope that the members of the OLC will have this knowledge and experience between them once it is set up, that may not always be the case. We want to create a system with enough flexibility. For example, if there were six candidates with good experience of the first five attributes set out in paragraph 4, but with little experience of the last four, the LSB might want to appoint further people to fill those skills gaps. Unless there was some way of making the Office of Legal Complaints bigger, that could not happen. On the other hand, we do not want the OLC to become so large that it is unnecessarily bureaucratic or costly. We are trying to balance the interests of both the consumer and the profession. The Secretary of State, who is accountable to Parliament, is best placed to do that and that is why that power exists under Schedule 15.
	On Amendment No. 113, I have explained the differences between the OLC and the LSB, and those differences are also important in respect of this amendment. Under paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 15, members of the OLC, including the chairman, cannot be removed unless they have failed without reasonable excuse to discharge the functions of the Office of Legal Complaints for a continuous period of six months, have been convicted of an offence, are an undischarged bankrupt, or are otherwise unfit to hold the office or unable to discharge its functions. Members of the OLC are appointed by the LSB and can be removed by the LSB only if those conditions are met.
	The requirement that the Secretary of State, who is accountable to Parliament, consents to the removal of the chairman does not affect the independence of the OLC in carrying out its duties. Instead, it acts as a check on precipitate or unreasonable removal of the chairman by the Legal Services Board. That is a different proposition to that which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell, are concerned about.

Lord Kingsland: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her full reply. Indeed, she is right that the substitution of the Lord Chancellor for the Secretary of State is reassuring in the context of these two amendments. However, with great respect, it does not satisfy our concerns. The noble Baroness said that the scheme of the Bill was that the Office for Legal Complaints was subject to the Legal Services Board—that it was in a sense its creature—and that because the Legal Services Board is independent of the state, we should have no worries about the independence of the OLC. That, I think, is the fundamental proposition that the noble Baroness has been making; I see that she is nodding.
	In relation to that proposition, we have two concerns. The first is about the independence of the Legal Services Board. In the course of our debate on Clause 1, several noble Lords—I see, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, in his place—expressed serious concerns about the independence of the Legal Services Board. To the extent that the board is not independent, we should be concerned about the independence of the Office for Legal Complaints.
	Secondly, even if the noble Baroness is right about the independence of the Legal Services Board, why is it necessary to interpose a figure who is as authoritative and above the legal battle as the Lord Chancellor to second-guess, in some circumstances, the independent judgment of the Legal Services Board, to which the Office for Legal Complaints is supposed to be responsible? In our submission, the Bill does not reflect the proposition that the noble Baroness has put before the Chamber—that the independence of the Legal Services Board should allay any concerns we have about the independence of the Office for Legal Complaints.
	Perhaps I could put the point this way. I agree entirely with what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve; I simply do not think that the Bill reflects her objective.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am sorry that the noble Lord does not agree with me. I want to make one point about a matter that puzzles me. One of the threads of our deliberations in Committee over the past few days—it feels longer—has been to ensure that there is the right level of accountability. Noble Lords—particularly those with professional experience within the legal world—have been concerned about issues such as public interest and making sure that no funny business can go on. One issue that I have been interested in in this Bill—as the noble Lord knows, it is not my policy area, so in a sense I look at it in a slightly fresh way—involves providing the opportunity for Parliament to be able to hold to account when you have independent bodies. The traditional way, which has worked through generations of different Governments, has been that the Secretary of State and the Lord Chancellor—I agree that it should involve the Lord Chancellor—are able to be held to account. If there was a feeling that the Legal Services Board had acted inappropriately for whatever reason—we do not expect that and I know that noble Lords do not do so—the Secretary of State would have to have agreed that and would be accountable to Parliament, a Select Committee or whatever for that decision. To remove that is in a sense to move away from what I understood to be one of the threads underlying the Bill.

Lord Lyell of Markyate: The noble Baroness makes a good point about accountability to Parliament; I am always banging on about it myself—it is very important. Might not the answer here be to add the consent of the Lord Chief Justice to that of the Lord Chancellor? That way, the Lord Chancellor would be accounting on a very strong wicket.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Not surprisingly, I disagree with that; I do so because the Lord Chief Justice has many functions and plays an incredibly important role—he has a particularly important role in relation to the judiciary. This involves a layperson being appointed on a non-departmental public body, and accountability should be through the Government to Parliament.

Lord Kingsland: Of course the Lord Chancellor is accountable to Parliament, but, in basing her arguments on the political accountability of the Lord Chancellor's Department the noble Baroness makes the point that I was trying to make for me. What I thought the noble Baroness was trying to achieve, as a matter of principle here, was independence of the political process. To fall back on the accountability of the Lord Chancellor to Parliament is to rely on the political process to justify the way in which the Government have drafted these provisions.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: No, I disagree with that. We are relying on legislation that sets out how independent bodies will operate in conjunction with each other. Noble Lords would wish us to set that out as firmly as we can, recognising the advantages in primary and secondary legislation of the flexibility that we need. We sought to do that by clarifying the circumstances under which it operates. However, we want to add that if something as critical as the removal of the chairman were to occur, it is important that there should be an accountability process and that the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor should play that role. I do not think that there is anything contradictory in this. This is about independence but it is also about accountability on an area of policy that is, as noble Lords have made very clear over the past few days in Committee, of critical importance in our recognising the roles played by the professional legal services. That is what we have sought to do.

Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. I think we have taken this as far as we need to in Committee. On Report, I shall suggest to the noble Baroness that if the Lord Chancellor disagrees with a decision made by the Legal Services Board in respect of either the chairmanship of the Office for Legal Complaints or the number of members on the Office for Legal Complaints' board, the appropriate remedy for him would not be to intervene directly at the Office for Legal Complaints level, but to intervene at the Legal Services Board level—because he would have disagreed with a decision of the Legal Services Board. Between now and Report, I shall reflect on these matters and return with a further amendment. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Whitty: I shall not move the amendment, but I want to record my appreciation of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in moving amendments the other night on my behalf. He and I have not always agreed in these debates but he moved them most eloquently—certainly far more eloquently than I could have done. I also thank the Minister for making it clear that the clause as it stands does not allow a redelegation back to the professional bodies by the back door. I abuse the procedure by making it clear that I shall oppose any amendments that allow redelegation to professional bodies by the front door.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: The paragraphs that I seek to remove from the Bill raise questions that flow naturally from the debate we have just had about the independence of the Office for Legal Complaints. The treatment of the authority of the Office for Legal Complaints in paragraphs 21 and 22 is rather different, for example, from that in the previous paragraph dealing with the Office for Legal Complaints' budget. I am moved to inquire why there is the requirement that powers over the acquisition or disposal of land should be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State.
	That has the appearance of interfering with what seems to be a purely operational matter. It is not suggested that a move in those directions in respect of land should be subject to the Legal Services Board, but it has to go all the way to the top, which seems rather odd. These matters appear to be suitable for a determination by the board itself and such a provision may inhibit the freedom of the Office for Legal Complaints to act decisively and quickly and to react to changing circumstances.
	There is some suspicion in certain consumer quarters, which no doubt has passed the ears of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that this is actually about—the clue may be in the limitation of this power in sub-paragraph (2) to the initial five-year period—the present office being located in the West Midlands. There is only one new element, which may be dissipated, and that is the building, as it is thought likely that the incumbent staff will move across from the Law Society's consumer complaints service en masse. We had some discussion about that earlier but the concern remains.
	The Bill also appears to include a provision in Schedule 15 that could have the effect of making the preferred West Midlands location binding for at least five years. I admit that curiosity, at least as much as a firm intention to push this matter, lies behind the tabling of the amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: As the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, said, we have touched previously on location, and I shall try to tackle that first. When we were considering the location, there were a number of factors to take into account. Criticisms have been levied at the current organisation—I shall not reiterate them—but that does not mean, as I know noble Lords accept, that everyone in the organisation is not able to do a good and viable job responsibly.
	It will be three years before the OLC comes into being, during which complaints will still need to be dealt with. We have to think about ensuring that we retain staff whom we wish to see transferred across under existing TUPE rules and also that we think through appropriately value for money, the skills and experience that we will need, the commitment to TUPE, and the presumption against London as a location, following the Lyons review.
	If you put all those factors into the mix, in our view you end up saying that it is appropriate that the new organisation should be able to build on the skills of some, if not all, of the people currently involved. It will be a different structure, and we believe that it will certainly be a different culture due to the way in which it is being set up. None the less, there will be people who are fully able to do a good job, and we have therefore indicated that it would be appropriate to enable them to move across to the new organisation. We do not want difficulties for the Law Society, which there would be if over the three years people bled away and got new jobs because they were not prepared to relocate perhaps hundreds of miles away. That would create a very difficult set of circumstances over the next three years.
	That does not mean that we are recreating an organisation which, in general, people feel has not been able to do the job as well as it might, but it does recognise that lots of people within that organisation probably do a very good job and that they need to have the opportunity to work within the new structure. That is the business case that we have evolved. So we said that the new office would not be in Leamington Spa, where the current arrangements are at present, but that it would be in the West Midlands. Thus the staff who currently work there know that there are potential jobs for them.
	The new structure will be different. We do not know how many people will be able to transfer across in the way that TUPE allows but we certainly do not want to rule out any opportunities for people. I think that that is absolutely the right approach. However, as noble Lords made clear to me in Committee, it will be very important that it feels like a new organisation, not least for the good people who are going to work in it, and that it will be able to carry the confidence of the professions, the public and consumers. That is what we seek to achieve, and why it will be set up in this way.
	On the specific issues the noble Lord raised, he will know that, particularly as regards his first amendment about locations, we have put in a sunset clause after five years. We think that that is right and proper because the circumstances will change. We have therefore enabled the provision to disappear after five years. So it is not for ever and that appropriately tackles the problems I have identified as important.
	Paragraph 22 of Schedule 15 provides that any borrowing the OLC might do would need to have authorisation from the Legal Services Board and, through it, the consent of the Lord Chancellor. It enables a provision to exist in legislation that if the circumstances arise—currently unforeseen—the OLC would not be able to borrow any money without the agreement of the Legal Services Board and the Lord Chancellor. We have done that for reasons similar to those I have already given; not least because if it were to do that, there would be concerns in the context of how it is funded—a matter which I know we will discuss, no doubt at great length, later. But it is important to have those safeguards in place. So there is one safeguard with the sunset clause; there is another with the safeguards built into it which would enable that action to happen, should that be necessary.
	I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, will understand our rationale in thinking that there is a very good business case for the location of the OLC so that the current work can continue, there will be the opportunity for skilled people to move across to it, and that it is recognised that this needs to be a new organisation.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining what lies behind this slightly, on the face of it, odd provision. It is a transitional arrangement written into the Bill, but of course there will be a price to be paid. I understand what she says about the rights and interests of those currently employed in the Law Society's consumer complaints service, but they are taken care of in the law—the noble Baroness referred to TUPE.
	The main concern that this gives rise to is the perception that the Government are making less of a change than had been heralded by making such a remarkable provision in primary legislation to ensure that the location of the OLC does not lie in its hands for a number of years to come, and that it will be where it has been determined in the manner that the Minister described. However, she has elucidated the thinking, and it is a matter of judgment whether that perception vitiates the wider purpose of the Bill and the wider purpose of seeking to strengthen not only the appearance of independence, but also the actuality. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for trailing the amendments standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. He is right in describing their purpose, which is not to empower the Legal Services Board to initiate new investigations but, rather, to give it a power that already exists in the hands of the Legal Services Complaints Commissioner, for which no provision is made in the Bill. It is the power to intervene if the OLC is failing to meet the purposes for which it has been established and to consider strategically what is being done by the OLC. If the OLC is not seen to be handling complaints effectively and efficiently, some such power is required. The purpose of my amendments is to spell out how those powers might be exercisable.
	It is important, and I understood it to be an underlying purpose of the Bill, that the whole system of legal complaints should be subject to independent scrutiny and review. If the operational decisions by the Office for Legal Complaints are not giving rise to the satisfaction that it is hoped that they will elicit, the system ought to provide a remedy. That is the purpose of the three amendments that I have tabled.

Lord Neill of Bladen: To consider the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, on its own, my only concern in this area is whether there is any suggestion that there might be intervention in a particular ongoing complaint that is being adjudicated. In other words, could the OLC be told what decision it is to arrive at, or is this all intended to operate ex post? You have a decision, maybe half a dozen decisions, and then there is public concern, or a number of people are concerned, about the way in which the OLC has been doing its job. Intervention in current decisions would be completely undesirable as it would completely destroy the independent stature of the OLC. I cannot believe that that is intended.

Lord Kingsland: The noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, has made a very good point on this line of amendments. My understanding is that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and indeed the Liberal amendments, which are in the same line, are intended to be directed not at an individual complaint, but at the system that is being operated by the Office for Legal Complaints. If there is a systematic failure by the Office for Legal Complaints to fulfil its role in the way the Legal Services Board thinks it ought to be fulfilled, that would give the Legal Services Board the opportunity to issue directions ex post, which would correct the conduct of the OLC. That is what I understood by this line of amendments. We have not tabled any amendments; but if their approach is the one that ought to be adopted by your Lordships, then they would be, in my submission, the proper way of achieving it.
	These amendments have made me look in a little more detail at Clauses 111 to 118. I must confess to your Lordships—particularly in the context of the Minister's earlier remarks about the accountability of the OLC to the Legal Services Board—that these provisions give rise to considerable cause for concern, at least to me. This is because Clause 115 requires the Office for Legal Complaints to prepare an annual report, which will go to the Secretary of State—soon to be substituted by the Lord Chancellor—and then be laid before Parliament. That suggests an entirely different line of accountability for the OLC from the one suggested by the noble Baroness, which is accountability to the Legal Services Board.
	Would it not be more appropriate for the Legal Services Board's annual report to contain everything that it is necessary to say about the Office for Legal Complaints, making Clause 115 surplus to requirements? Indeed, if Parliament discussed an annual report under Clause 115, prepared by the Office for Legal Complaints, there might be a danger that it would come to an entirely different view about how the Office for Legal Complaints ought to operate from the one taken by the Legal Services Board. Surely parliamentary accountability ought exclusively to lie in the relationship between the Legal Services Board and Parliament. If both these institutions independently account to Parliament, the potential for confusion is considerable.
	The noble Baroness might be saying to your Lordships in response to these amendments that Clause 118 requires the OLC to meet performance targets and, if it does not, that the Legal Services Board has certain powers in relation to the OLC. Performance targets, however, are quite different from those matters raised by the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Maclennan of Rogart.
	I can summarise my observations by saying that if the noble Baroness wishes to sustain her earlier argument that the Office for Legal Complaints is accountable to the Legal Services Board, Clauses 111 to 118 do not properly reflect that.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am perfectly happy to say that I am easily confused, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, knows well, and I apologise for not quite understanding what he meant. I am happy to look at that, as one issue has been to make sure that the OLC—I would probably not go as far as saying that is a creature of the other body, but it certainly has responsibilities to it—is aware of its responsibilities as an NDPB and is functioning properly. These clauses are, in part, designed to achieve that and we therefore felt that it was important to look at the OLC as an entity. However, the noble Lord makes a good point and, if I might, I will look at it and talk to my colleagues about it.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: I am reassured to the extent that the Minister is anxious to ensure that the powers that I suggest the board should have ought to be on the face of the Bill. However, I am by no means certain that the performance target requirements deal with the issue either. Performance targets are very often concerned with percentages, costs and many other things that are not necessarily directly to do with a pattern of consumer dissatisfaction. It is those concerns that I am seeking to address.
	I am not unresponsive to what the Minister said—I have no doubt that she has this in mind—but the question of who deals with a failing OLC needs to be answered comprehensively. There are certain instrumentalities for dealing with certain shortcomings, but they are not sufficiently comprehensive. I hope that the Minister will look again at this matter and consider whether it is possible to meet these concerns by importing something into the Bill.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I will give anything further thought, as my noble friend would expect. The only comment I would make is that the powers may not look the same because this is a different system, and the role that my noble friend describes would not be the same. We think that we have captured what my noble friend is seeking, which is the opportunity for the Legal Services Board to be sure, in a systemic way, that clear areas of concern can be dealt with. We think that the combination of monitoring, targets, requiring reports and, at the end of the day, being able to remove people is a good one, and will tackle that issue. Of course I will look further at it, though, to ensure that we have captured that. I think that there is nothing between the two of us on this matter, except to say that the Government are not recreating the system as it currently stands because the position of this body is not equivalent to that of the current body.

Lord Whitty: My Amendment No. 119A is in this group. Unlike the noble Lord's amendment, it does not seek to extend mandatory jurisdiction to other areas but would allow for a voluntary extension. The Bill makes the majority of legal activities reserved activities but there are a number of legal and quasi-legal activities which are not reserved, usually for good reason. The full regulation of the legislation would probably inhibit competition regarding will-writing, for example, and the effects would be detrimental to the consumer. However, it means that non-reserved activities are not allowably covered by the ombudsman system.
	The amendment would allow non-reserved legal service providers to come within the jurisdiction of the ombudsman on a voluntary basis. The model I am thinking of is the financial services sector. Financial services which are not legislatively required to come under the regulatory or ombudsman service can voluntarily, through their own trade association or individual firms, opt to become part of the ombudsman service as a reassurance to the consumers of those services. Normally, a trade association would apply to bring its membership in bulk into the system, but an individual firm could enter. In either case, the conditions would be that voluntary subscription to the ombudsman service would entail acceptance of the terms of the redress rules, compensation limits, information-gathering powers, and so on.
	The amendment would extend consumer protection into unregulated areas without subjecting those activities to the full burden of regulation operated by the LSB. It would have the other advantage of preventing a new regulatory maze confusing the consumer; parts of the unregulated sector choosing an entirely different system of redress bodies and disputes resolution would be a recipe for confusion and inconsistency.
	Legal service providers would also benefit because it would lend their services added credibility and status. Displaying the ombudsman logo on their premises and paperwork will enable providers to differentiate themselves from their perhaps less scrupulous rivals who decide, on whatever basis, not to join the ombudsman scheme. I commend the amendment; it would increase consumer protection and the ability to differentiate with regard to the good performers in the non-reserved sector of legal and quasi-legal services.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am grateful to noble Lords for raising these issues. It might seem obvious to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that there should be a requirement that the jurisdiction of the Office for Legal Complaints be limited to complaints about legal activities. In general, I accept and expect that complaints will relate to acts and omissions in carrying out legal activities, but I want to resist putting this in the Bill, and I shall explain why.
	It is a requirement that a respondent to a complaint must be someone capable of being complained about under the scheme. That means that at the time the act or omission to which the complaint relates occurred they must have been an authorised person in relation to an activity which is a reserved legal activity. It does not matter under the Bill whether the act or omission in question relates to a reserved legal activity—advocacy, litigation, licensed conveyancing, and so on—or some other legal activity or service that the respondent was providing. That is partly because we have taken the view that what matters is that the person is authorised; therefore, as their client, the complainant should be capable of complaining about any aspect of the service provided. It is also because in the world of alternative business structures, firms will be providing packages of services, and a complaint may therefore wholly or partly relate to other non-legal services. We do not want those complaints to be excluded simply because the activity was not wholly or partly a legal activity or service.
	In those circumstances, an ombudsman will need to make a judgment on whether the complaint is best dealt with under the OLC scheme or another scheme. Where a complaint is purely about financial advice, for example, the ombudsman may decide, with the consent of the complainant, that it would be more appropriate to pass it on to the Financial Ombudsman Service under the scheme rules in Clause 130(3)(b). But where the complaint contains aspects covered by different jurisdictions, the OLC might want to consider the complaint and provide redress in the round. It is better to leave the jurisdiction as open as possible, albeit with the safeguards that we have put in Clauses 123 to 125, so that the ombudsman can take into account all the factors. We would not want to see a genuine complaint excluded because the aspect being complained about was not quality of legal service, but simply quality of service; for example, the legal advice was fine but the lawyer was rude or condescending or whatever reasons might be given.
	I am also keen for consumers not to have to try to work out to whom they should complain. We want there to be a one-stop shop and for the ombudsman to determine where best that complaint should go. Although I understand the principle behind what the noble Lord is seeking to achieve, I expect the ombudsman to be looking primarily at legal complaints. I do not want to reach the point where the consumer is unable to raise complaints and have the ombudsman look at them in the round, work with others or pass them on as appropriate.
	The amendment of my noble friend Lord Whitty raises an interesting point about the voluntary basis that we could see the jurisdiction being extended to. I understand what my noble friend seeks to achieve. In fact, the Financial Ombudsman Service's voluntary jurisdiction has worked very well in practice and has been a useful transitional arrangement for those who are not yet regulated by the Financial Services Authority, but who may be regulated in time. So I can see the merit in enabling such a voluntary jurisdiction to be established.
	However, at this stage it is important that the OLC deals with complaints against those providing reserved legal activities as set out in the Bill. As my noble friend knows well, there is real consumer concern in this area. I want the OLC to look at those issues first. That said, I see the potential benefit of allowing for a voluntary jurisdiction to be established, subject of course to the consultation and consent that would need to go alongside that. I will take this away with a view to bringing something back at the next stage of this Bill, with what I have said about the focus of the OLC but none the less recognising that this is important.
	Amendment No. 120A, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, would extend the jurisdiction, but on a compulsory rather than voluntary basis. Aside from all the practical questions about the standards to which people who are not regulated would be held, how we would define "legal advice and assistance" and who would pay for this—because it would be a vast expansion of the ombudsman scheme's jurisdiction—we think it runs contrary to the position set out by Clementi and our position set out in the White Paper. I accept that it leaves some consumers unprotected, but it is a question at this stage of how far we can cast the regulatory net. That decision is based on a risk-based approach to regulation, and the Legal Services Board, under the legislation, will be able to take decisions to expand or even to reduce the scope of regulation should it be clear that it is appropriate to do so. We have already discussed some areas that noble Lords are concerned about where, ultimately, the Legal Services Board might consider it wished to move into. There are also issues of educating consumers about different types of legal service providers; which are regulated and which therefore offer them greater protection.
	I have already said that there is a possibility that we could look at the voluntary jurisdiction scheme. If we were to provide for that and the OLC decided to set up such a scheme, we could bring currently unregulated activities or unregulated providers within that. There could be real benefits in that. But at the moment, we would rather be clear about where the regulatory net sits in terms of the compulsion and invite the LSB in looking at its future to determine where else it thinks the regulatory net should be cast. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. I accept that some complaints, particularly those involving organisations under Part 5 of the Bill, may concern a multitude of disciplines and that somebody has to sift the problems out and place them into the appropriate professional compartments. At the same time, the way the clause is cast in the Bill is very wide and gives unnecessarily broad discretion to the OLC. I invite the Minister between now and Report to consider an alternative way of drafting that on one hand ensures that there will not be any loopholes in the system and on the other constrains the discretion of the OLC as much as possible.
	On Amendment No. 120A, I recognise that there must be some limit to the scope of the scheme. There are a large number of paralegals and, by the very nature of the circumstances in which they give their advice, regulating them might prove extremely complex and therefore extremely expensive. But I was reassured by the Minister's observations that the Legal Services Board will keep the matter under review and, if it transpires that this is a growing problem, the question whether some form of regulation should be introduced will be reconsidered. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Kingsland: I shall also speak to Amendment No. 123. The purpose of the amendments is to protect the interests of complainants when, for whatever reason, they are unable to include provision for payment of redress into a person's estate. The amendments would make such a provision mandatory for the scheme rules. Once the OLC has upheld a complaint it seems only equitable that redress must be paid. It would be wrong for the party at fault to escape redress because of some misfortune befalling the complainant. The amendment would ensure that such rights to compensation or other redress continue. Since Clause 129(4) already grants the power to legislate for such a provision, we are not asking the Government to accept a new matter of principle, merely to put it in the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Kingsland: moved Amendment No. 128:
	Clause 130 , page 66, line 39, at end insert "only by the Chief Ombudsman or an assistant ombudsman"

Lord Kingsland: I am reassured by much of what the noble Baroness has said. She made a distinction between delegation and transfer; but if delegation means what she said—in other words, it is not a delegation of the ultimate responsibility to take the decision—is it necessary to have that provision in the Bill at all?
	In normal circumstances, responsible decision-makers will delegate to other members of staff some of the work that they require to be carried out in order to take that decision. That is a normal part of daily working relations. I would not have thought that it was necessary to refer to that in the Bill. The reference to delegation in the Bill suggested to me that it was a delegation of responsibility as well as work. If the noble Baroness is saying to me that it is not a delegation of responsibility, but is merely a delegation of work, I am reassured. But I am surprised that it was felt necessary to put that on the face of the Bill.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 130A:
	Clause 130 , page 67, line 13, leave out "the complainant or"

Baroness Butler-Sloss: Perhaps I may look at the other side of the situation. I totally understand what lies behind the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, but, if the Committee were to approve it, it is important that the second part of what he said should be taken into account also. There are unscrupulous lawyers, but there are also unscrupulous complainants. It is important that the concept lying behind the clause is recognised and, at the very least, if people put forward utterly unreasonable complaints, the ombudsman should have a power to deal with them. There may be a need to strengthen subsections (1) and (2), either by using the word "vexatious" or a similar word. However, not giving the ombudsman any power to deal with an utterly unreasonable complainant who has, no doubt, caused the lawyer to spend a lot of money, when that lawyer has been reasonable in dealing with that litigant, would be going to the other extreme. Consequently, one should balance the importance of protecting the consumer with protection against the unreasonable complaint.

Lord Kingsland: moved Amendment No. 133:
	Clause 133 , page 68, line 40, after "scheme" insert "which are determined in favour (or substantially in favour) of the complainant"

Lord Kingsland: The purpose of this amendment is to enshrine the "polluter pays" principle in the Bill. The amendment would provide that a respondent is required to pay charges under Clause 133 in respect of a complaint against him, only where the complaint is upheld, or substantially upheld.
	The Bill goes against the recommendations of Sir David Clementi's report. As it stands, the supposed polluter is required to pay the cost of the complaint even if the complaint proves unfounded. This contravenes the Clementi proposal that payment should be made by,
	"those against whom a complaint has been upheld".
	It is manifestly unfair that those who are the subject of a complaint that is not upheld should be required to pay towards the cost of investigation. Let me illustrate the point with respect to junior members of the Bar with criminal and family practices. These are fields of practice in which unjustifiable complaints are constantly an occupational hazard. As the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, commented during Second Reading,
	"It cannot stand up to any outside scrutiny that a man who has a false charge made against him has to pay [for] the costs of the proceedings".—[Official Report, 6/12/06; col. 1185.]
	I should emphasise that this amendment would not affect the power of an ombudsman under Clause 133(1) to require a respondent to pay costs, as a contribution to scheme resources, in cases of improper or unreasonable behaviour or delay. I beg to move.

Lord Lyell of Markyate: I strongly support the amendment and wholly agree with my noble friend Lord Kingsland and the noble and learned Baroness. This spreads, in my experience, to the criminal law. In a sense, this is a complete reversal of where we were 30 or 40 years ago, when we were too far pitched the other way. You could not sue a barrister, except in very limited circumstances, and you had very little redress.
	In her speech on the previous amendment, the Minister emphasised the importance of fairness. The Chamber was seeking to be fair to complainants and not to have unfair threats hanging over them. It must be important to be fair to both sides. People's animus and sense of dissatisfaction carries on whether this involves just the Family Division, as she so eloquently said, or all other fields of legal dispute. Many people will never let the subject go; they make complaints that they believe to be well founded but an independent adjudicator—the ombudsman—may not agree and the complaint would not be upheld. It is a strain for any barrister or solicitor who is faced with that problem to have to deal with it in any event, but to have to do so knowing that costs are being run up against you in a wholly unfounded case will be seen by every member of the public and every Member of this House to be deeply unfair, I should have thought. I very much hope that the Minister will reflect on that.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: I find the reply of the noble Baroness almost more disturbing than her initial remarks. She seems to be saying that because the case gets to the OLC, the person who was complained against was in some way responsible. Frankly, that cannot be right. It is wrong to seek to finance or to sustain, or partially sustain, a body of this kind by contributions from people against whom charges have been brought which have not been found to be substantiated. If there is some administrative problem, that is certainly not a cause for levying a charge against an individual.
	I am bound to say that nothing that the Minister has said so far in the debate gives one any cause for satisfaction that this problem has even been recognised by the draftsman of the Bill. It may not be appropriate to divide the House—I do not know the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland—but I am bound to say that we shall certainly wish to return to this matter, no doubt following wider consultations. This is such an important issue of principle that the idea that it can be sorted out by schemes that will be drafted by this body and which is not clearly part of the law is a wholly unsatisfactory way of dealing with this.

Lord Whitty: Before we finish on this amendment, I would like to correct the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Greenford. This is not just about inconvenience and distress; it is a way of resolving other issues. Clause 134(2)(c) states that the respondent must,
	"pay compensation to the complainant of such an amount as is specified in the direction in respect of any loss which has been suffered ... or any inconvenience or distress".
	It therefore could be related to a financial loss of the order that I have described.

Lord Lyell of Markyate: I support my noble friend Lord Kingsland in raising an amendment that explores an important point. This is really a question of whether you get the full supervision—and, if necessary, correction—of the High Court or the valuable but incomplete supervision that comes from judicial review. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, need not worry that everything will get pushed off to the High Court. The number of cases that would be appealed by a lawyer found liable by the ombudsman, be he barrister or solicitor, would be few and far between.
	As tribunals can go seriously wrong there is a possibility that, as my noble friend said, they can sweep over from the individual complaint—on, let us say, competence, which may have caused some financial loss—to a disciplinary matter. Consequently, it can affect somebody's very livelihood and their right to practice. There is a strong case for saying that we ought to consider carefully whether there should be no right of appeal, and in that spirit I support my noble friend's amendment.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Civil Service nationality rules have a long and complex history and it may help if I begin by setting out the background to the interplay between the relevant legislation and our European obligations. The legislation stems initially from the Act of Settlement 1700 and was reinforced by the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act 1919 which provides that,
	"no alien shall be appointed to any office or place in the Civil Service of the State".
	The British Nationality Act 1981 defines an alien as a person who is neither a Commonwealth citizen nor a British protected person nor a citizen of the Republic of Ireland.
	During the Second World War, defence regulations permitted the temporary employment of aliens if no suitable British subjects were available. This was replaced by the Aliens' Employment Act 1955 which provides that,
	"an alien may be employed in any civil capacity under the Crown",
	either to posts outside the UK or exceptionally in other circumstances, under cover of an aliens' certificate signed by the responsible Minister.
	The European Communities (Employment in the Civil Service) Order 1991 and the European Economic Area Act 1993 had the effect of opening up Crown employment to nationals of the European Economic Area with the exception of "public service" posts within the meaning of Article 39(4) of the EC Treaty.
	Civil Service posts are of a varied nature. Most of them, such as those responsible for general administration and service delivery, do not require any special bond of allegiance to the state and do not need to be carried out by a UK national. These are known for the purposes of recruitment and appointment as "non-core" or "non-reserved" posts. On the basis of a survey conducted in 2005, about 82 per cent of Home Civil Service posts are designated as non-reserved and are open, in addition to UK nationals, to citizens of the Commonwealth countries, EEA nationals of other member states and certain members of their families who are non-EEA nationals, and nationals of other countries who are granted an aliens' certificate in accordance with the provisions of the Aliens' Employment Act 1955. The circumstances under which a certificate under this Act may be granted are strictly defined so that in recent years the number of aliens employed at any one time has been very small. For example, during 2005-06, only 67 aliens' certificates were in force throughout the Home Civil Service.
	Article 39 of the EC Treaty guarantees to workers from each member state the right freely to reside and take up employment in other member states. However, Article 39(4) provides an exception to these free movement provisions and enables each member state of the European Union to reserve for its own nationals those posts which constitute "employment in the public service". While the treaty does not provide a definition of these posts, the term has been defined by the European Court of Justice to mean broadly those posts which involve direct or indirect participation in the exercise of powers conferred by public law and in duties the purpose of which is to safeguard the general interest of the state or other public bodies and which therefore require a special allegiance to the state on the part of the persons occupying them.
	Moreover, additional restrictions have had to be placed on the nationality of those who can be appointed to "public service" posts. Until 1 June 1996 these posts were also open to Irish citizens on the grounds that they were not statutorily barred from employment in any post in the Civil Service. However, the rules were changed on that date by amending the Civil Service management code to exclude all future new entrant Irish nationals from employment in these posts. This was done to ensure that Irish nationals were treated in the same way as nationals of other EU member states as regards access to Civil Service posts.
	The Cabinet Office guidance on the nationality rules lists a number of categories of posts to assist departments and agencies in assessing whether or not a post should be reserved. The list was first assembled in 1992 and has remained unchanged since 1996. For example, one category requires, without qualification, that all posts which are concerned with revenue collection and assessment should be reserved for UK nationals. One effect of this is that Irish and other EEA nationals who enter HM Revenue and Customs at an administrative level are prevented from taking up a promotion within the department as the more senior post is reserved for UK nationals only. The non-specific nature of the current guidance has required a similar approach to be applied to the Customs side of the department, with the result that of the 97,000 posts—or 18 per cent of the total number of posts in the Home Civil Service—which are reserved for UK nationals only, 79,000 are to be found in HM Revenue and Customs. This is much more than is operationally necessary.
	The nationality rules have been a source of much frustration throughout the Civil Service for many years as they are complex and administratively very difficult to apply. The long-term aim of the Government has been to remove the statutory restrictions on employing aliens in the Civil Service and to replace them with a general power to make rules imposing requirements as to nationality which would, of course, have to be exercised compatibly with the EC Treaty obligations and in compliance with EC law. This can be achieved only through primary legislation. Earlier attempts by this means have met with little success.
	Given the difficulties in bringing forward primary legislation, the Cabinet Office has been considering alternative legislative vehicles for making the changes. Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 presents an opportunity to take forward change to the current legislation which, while not as wide-ranging as those envisaged under primary legislation, would allow departments and agencies to open up a much larger percentage of their posts to non-UK EEA nationals. This will greatly benefit the UK Civil Service, which will be able to employ the best people based on selection on merit through fair and open competition from a much wider pool of talent.
	The draft order, which has been drawn up after an extensive consultation exercise within government and with the support of the Council of Civil Service Unions, deals, therefore, with a change in the status of certain posts in civil employment under the Crown, including the Home Civil Service and the Northern Ireland Civil Service, to make them more accessible to nationals of the European Economic Area who are already eligible to apply for the majority of posts. I stress that it does not deal with immigration or work permits and does not affect the requirements for those non-UK nationals specified in the draft order to obtain leave to remain and to work in the UK before they can take up employment.
	The draft order will apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. Article 2 amends the Aliens' Employment Act 1955 to provide decision makers with a more detailed test to be applied when determining which posts should not be open to EEA nationals. As the Aliens' Employment Act 1955 does not apply to Northern Ireland, an amendment to the European Communities (Employment in the Civil Service) Order 1991, at Article 3 of the draft order, achieves the same effect for Northern Ireland.
	With regard to Northern Ireland, at a practical level, with a considerable pool of relatively local non-UK talent on its doorstep, it is organisationally undesirable for the Northern Ireland Civil Service routinely to have to turn away suitably qualified people on grounds of nationality. This is a frequent occurrence and, from an efficiency perspective alone, the Northern Ireland Civil Service would be very keen to see a change which allowed it greater flexibility in recruitment.
	I wish to comment on security, which is, of course, important to the Civil Service. The draft order will have no effect on security requirements. All persons taking up employment or holding office in a civil capacity under the Crown will continue to be subject to the usual security checks governing such appointments. I should also make the point that nationality requirements are not the same as security requirements, which can be imposed on any potential recruit, irrespective of nationality. There is an occasional misunderstanding that security check clearance indicates that the post must automatically be in the public service category. That is not the case. Security clearance may be required for public service or non-public service posts. The main purpose of vetting is to provide an assurance of the reliability and trustworthiness of individuals, factors that are not necessarily connected with their nationality.
	I must emphasise that it will remain a matter of policy to restrict access to certain posts to UK nationals where that is strictly necessary, and the draft order provides revised criteria for doing so. In order to allow departments and agencies to reserve posts in future, the draft order specifies a test that must be met. That test is believed to have a number of advantages over the current guidance, which has been in place for so long and has become a source of so much confusion and uncertainty. First, it sets out clearly the categories of posts that may be reserved. Secondly, a tighter and clearer definition in the order will ensure greater consistency across departments and agencies. Thirdly, except in relation to posts in the security and intelligence services, which will continue to be reserved, Ministers must consider the justification for reserving a post that falls within the other categories set out in the order; that is, posts in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service and the Defence Intelligence Staff.
	It has also been necessary to include certain broader categories in the definition of "reserved posts". They are set out in the draft order as posts whose functions are concerned with access to intelligence information received directly or indirectly from the security and intelligence services or access to other information that, if disclosed without authority or otherwise misused, might damage the interests of national security or might be prejudicial to the interests of the United Kingdom or the safety of its citizens. A final category includes posts whose functions are concerned with border control or decisions about immigration.
	The draft order is not being made in response to any new European legislation or directive. Instead, its purpose is to increase the efficient running of the Civil Service by making the criteria for reserving posts more specific and more relevant to the business of departments and agencies in response to the evolving Civil Service agenda.
	I apologise for the length of this introduction, but it will be recognised how significant this order is. We looked at primary legislation as a possibility for dealing with this issue, but we could not expedite that in reasonable time. Accordingly, this order is before your Lordships for consideration today, and I beg to move.

Lord De Mauley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the order so thoroughly—and at such speed. We support in principle what is being done here. One of the main provisos is that we need to be satisfied that there are adequate safeguards of the important national interests of security, trade and diplomacy. I will return to those in a moment.
	I note from Monday's debate in another place that the Minister there failed to answer any of the questions posed by my honourable friend the Member for North-West Norfolk, I think because the latter had said at the outset that he was unlikely to be able to stay for very long because he needed to be elsewhere, and the Minister's civil servants had perhaps assumed that they could therefore subsequently produce answers for him in writing. To refresh the Minister's memory, the questions concerned the following issues. First, the number of Irish nationals prevented, as the Minister said, from joining our Civil Service since 1996, about which the noble Lord, Lord Trimble asked a related question recently in your Lordships' House. Secondly the number of Turkish nationals affected by the Ankara agreement. Thirdly, the extent of the problem referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum of the recruitment of staff to reserved posts, causing difficulty for the efficient running of the Civil Service. Fourthly, the consultations that had taken place with the Civil Service unions. Finally, the stated proportion of the 5 per cent of posts reserved for UK nationals that was to be in particularly sensitive areas. I would be grateful to the Minister for answers on those points, since he has now had a couple of days' notice of them.
	I am sure noble Lords would agree that we have to be sure that our nationals are representing us on key issues. Will the Minister outline the safeguards that will be put in place to ensure that foreign nationals, employed in the Civil Service quite properly within the spirit and letter of the order, will not be able to get into a position such that they come into possession of information which, if disclosed without authority or otherwise misused, might damage the interests of national security? Expanding upon the question of my honourable friend in the other place, to which I referred earlier, will the Minister list the particular roles that will remain reserved, or, alternatively, explain who will determine whether a post is reserved or not?
	The Explanatory Notes say that consultation on the order within the Civil Service showed that there were "no significant objections". That rather implies that there were objections, but that the drafter considered them to have been insignificant. What objections to the order were made during the consultation within the Civil Service?
	How many foreign nationals, if any, will be employed by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate? If there are to be any, what will their roles be? Can the Minister confirm that no foreign national working in the Civil Service has, within the past 10 years, been disciplined for allegedly acting in a way that would risk harming the interests of the UK or its citizens? Finally, and importantly, what reciprocal arrangements do the Government propose should be made to ensure that UK citizens are similarly enabled to work in the civil services of other EU states?

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, it is the last of those questions that I wish to follow. I start by welcoming the order. I appreciate that there have been some sensitivities in Northern Ireland on this issue, but if we are moving Northern Ireland back to normality in every single sense of the term, the normal arrangements whereby nationals of other EU states, including the Republic of Ireland, have access to the British Civil Service under these terms have to be recognised.
	I congratulate Her Majesty's Government and their predecessor on the openness with which we have treated the nationals of other EU states, following on from the employment of many Commonwealth nationals within the British Civil Service. Two years ago I was rather shaken, when I had been invited to give a seminar with some others to a group within Her Majesty's Treasury on social policies in European Union member states, to find that I was addressing a group that included a British official of German nationality and one of Swedish nationality. I am told that when Gordon Brown invited Ministers from several other member states to a conference, the Spanish Finance Minister completely failed to understand how the native Spanish speaker who was looking after him could be a member of the British Civil Service, as it is so completely unthinkable that the Spanish Government would behave in the same way.
	I want to encourage Her Majesty's Government to ensure that this order is applied properly by other member states. I declare a particular interest: British professors are not officials, but German professors are, with all the dignity that that brings to them—I assure the Minister that they carry it very strongly; far too strongly, in my opinion—which means it is extremely difficult for a non-German national to become a full professor in a German university. That is absurd. I wish the Government would be active in exposing the many barriers that cover a much larger area in other countries than in Britain, because those countries are rather more statist, as well as in poking fun at other Governments on this and pointing with pride to our record. This is one of the many areas in which in practice we are much more European than some of our Continental neighbours, although they still seem to think that they are somehow more European than us.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I regret that I cannot give the order the same welcome as others have done so far. There are a number of reasons for that.
	I want to make it very clear that I do not have a prejudice against the other folk who live on the south of the island where I reside, nor am I anti-European to the extent that I would distrust individual European neighbours. In another place, I represented a constituency with a large population of Portuguese—East Timorese, in fact—Lithuanians and Poles. Both individually and through my party, we have managed, I think quite successfully, to integrate these people into our community. I say that in case, looking at an Ulster Unionist, the Minister may be inclined to think, "That guy is somewhat xenophobic"; I am not. I know that the Minister would never suggest such a thing.
	The order would have a serious impact on Northern Ireland, which is emerging from the fog of distrust, from years of violence and years of looking across a land frontier—this leaves Northern Ireland unique in the United Kingdom—at those near neighbours whose first loyalty must be to the Irish Republic. I am even more concerned in so far as my noble friend Lord Trimble asked the Minister about this very issue on 30 January. He was assured by the Minister that permanent secretary posts, for one, would be reserved posts, so there would be no question of "parachuting in" people from the Irish Republic. He recognised the implications for Northern Ireland; he knew what was at stake for the civil servant; but he recognised that,
	"certain posts and functions, such as the Security Service, will necessarily be reserved for British nationals".—[Official Report, 30/1/07; col. 121.]
	That answer appeared reassuring until 14 February. The Minister had obviously done his homework and had second thoughts because he then wrote to my noble friend Lord Trimble saying:
	"However, the draft Order in Council sets out categories of posts which are capable of being reserved. It would therefore be a matter for the Secretary of State to take the decision as to whether a particular post should be reserved".
	I am sure that the Minister knows the letter to which I refer. I will not read more of it, but he will understand my concern at this apparent indecision. Nobody has initially been clear whether there is a protection that we would require and hope for in Northern Ireland.
	When we last had the Assembly, somewhere around 1999 or 2000—I am not sure of the exact date—on the recommendation of the then head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, Permanent Secretaries were reclassified, as were other senior posts, and defined as reserved posts. It was very clear. The head of the Civil Service was not an old dyed-in-the-wool unionist like Ken Maginnis. He was a member of what we used politely to refer to as the minority community. He was a very fine servant of Northern Ireland, and he was from the Catholic community—from those whom one might expect automatically to have some sympathy with Irish republicanism. He realised the implications of complicating life in a place emerging from violence and distrust by, as my noble friend Lord Trimble described it, parachuting in senior civil servants from the Irish Republic.
	It is all very well to say that we will leave it in the hands of the Secretary of State. I would prefer not to personalise this, but I am afraid that to some extent I must. On what basis would the Secretary of State—or any successor Secretaries of State, if it came to that—make the judgment? I have just seen my Secretary of State apologise for the slave trade in Northern Ireland. Perhaps somebody should have told him before he apologised on my behalf that Northern Ireland was never engaged in that trade. In fact, in 1786 or thereabouts, before there was repealing legislation, the businessmen of Belfast came together—somebody had raised the prospect of a profit to be made—and were united across political and religious divides, and stipulated that the slave trade would not be brought to Belfast. So who makes a judgment that the Secretary of State apologises on my behalf? Who makes a judgment that, not content with that, he should go where I hope to go on Saturday, to Croke Park, to the English-Irish rugby match? As I look around the Chamber I know that I will be shouting for a different side from the noble Lords here present. Why should I go under the cloud that my Secretary of State is going to make a judgment that he will apologise for an event that happened in a war situation 87 years ago?
	Nobody has apologised to me for the pupils I taught in primary school who were murdered. Nobody has apologised to me for my teacher colleagues who were murdered. Nobody has apologised to me for my rugby mates who were murdered or for my neighbours. I do not want to personalise this any further, but, with that sort of presumption, I have to ask, "What is the motivation of my Secretary of State? Is it Northern Ireland or is it some future ambition?". I will leave it at that.
	I cannot hope to have confidence, nor will any of my colleagues, nor will people from the other tradition in Northern Ireland, that we will be properly represented when it comes to making a decision on this issue. I hope that the Minister will give me some greater reassurance than that the decision will be left in the hands of a single individual.
	National interest is not just about my police, my security or criminality and those things that we have had to endure in Northern Ireland for a number of years. National security is about jobs, inward investment and about how we attract inward investment. That does not fall within the scope of security or intelligence, although I suppose how we attract the packages that we put together is a form of intelligence. We all know that our current Secretary of State has been ensuring that the integrity of Northern Ireland investment packages is compromised by the way in which way we have to act. Let me put it clearly: we cannot send an economic trade delegation abroad on its own; it has to be accompanied by someone from the Irish Republic. That would be fine if we were fighting on a level playing field, but we are not doing that. We have a much higher level of corporation tax than in the Irish Republic. There are other aspects of economic life that are totally different, hence it is impossible to have duplication of interest—it is conflict of interest, if one is to be honest.
	I do not want to detain the House any longer. I hope that the Minister will reassure me that the interests of the people of Northern Ireland will not be sold short because we are bound to have people parachuted in who will, however honourable, still have that conflict of interest that will affect our community.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in the debate, which ranged a little more widely than I had anticipated, but was none the worse for that. I hope that I can respond to the considerable number of questions that have been posed to me while indicating that this is an important issue subject to proper scrutiny.
	I want to emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, that my opening remarks were protracted in order to do my best to reassure the House on certain matters, particularly on the question of consultation. I hear what he says, and there is always a judgment about whether reservations that have been expressed may be significant or insignificant. However, I assure the noble Lord that, when consultation is carried out with the civil service unions on a matter of such importance to them—the criteria for posts—and when we say that there was broad assent to the concept of the order and what it implies, I say that in the full knowledge that, if there had been serious reservations, we would not have dreamt of presenting the legislation in those terms. I want to reassure him that the consultation was full and effective. Inevitably, questions were raised on the margins, as one would expect, but there is broad support for what the measure does.
	The noble Lord mentioned the fact that inadequate answers were given at the other end. He will recognise that it is a convention in both Houses that if the questioner—Member of Parliament or noble Lord—does not stay until the end of the debate, it is not likely that he will be vouchsafed the courtesy of much of an answer. That is an important point. He indicated that that was part of the problem.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that might have thrown my honourable friend in the other place in those terms and he was able to concentrate a little less. However, I am able to concentrate more, and, as the noble Lord reiterated the questions, I will certainly do my best to respond to them.
	We think that about 5 per cent of the posts in the Civil Service will be reserved. That indicates to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, that the issue is being tackled. I will come to his particular position with regard to the Permanent Secretary in just a moment.
	I have answers to the specific questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley. I cannot say how many Irish nationals were prevented from joining the Northern Ireland Civil Service since 1996. I would not expect the Civil Service to collect negative information, as it were. I can look at the issue further and produce the best answer possible, but I do not have a figure because it is, in a sense, a negative question.
	The noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, asked about one particular group of nationals who are very important—Turkish nationals, who are not members of the European Community. The order applies to Turkish nationals, who are subject to additional conditions found in Article 6 of Decision 1/80 of the Association Council of the European Commission. Basically, a Turkish national must initially have a work permit. After a year, he or she can apply for renewal of the work permit. After three years, he or she can take up a job with another employer. Free access is granted only after four years of legal employment. Apart from two employees attached to the United Kingdom embassy and consulates in Turkey, to the best of our knowledge, no Turkish nationals are currently employed in the Civil Service.
	The noble Lord asked a more general question about what the British got out of this and whether there was reciprocity. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, addressed himself to that as well. The answer is "Not directly", in the sense that some states are more extensive in their provision for foreign nationals than we will be under the order. Some are considerably less so, particularly those who joined the European Community more recently. It would outweigh the patience of the House if I went through the full list of categories for every member of the European Community. I emphasise that reciprocity is the principle on which we work and what we seek to obtain. In the large employing states in the European Union who have been members for a considerable time that is largely so.
	Of course, there will be exceptions. Knowing his background, I should have anticipated the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, but I did not. He produced one brilliant illustration, asking, "What if a person is in one categorisation in one state and an entirely different categorisation in another, as professors are in Germany?". I do not think that the British Government are in a position to revolutionise the German higher education system at a stroke. He will recognise that there is a long historic reason why that position obtains in Germany.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I am absolutely confident that my noble friend Lord Trimble would forgive the Minister, as I would, for his common-sense answer in the first instance and regret that he had to apply the rules on his follow-up. But that is not the point that I wanted to make.
	The Minister uses the term "the Permanent Secretary". In Northern Ireland, we have the head of the Civil Service and a number of Permanent Secretaries. Would the Minister tell us exactly what he was saying a moment ago in that regard, for the sake of clarity?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I was including both categories—the head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service and Permanent Secretary positions. Clearly, such people would fit the criteria of having access to information and having responsibilities for the security of the state that would bring them within the framework of the decision of the Secretary of State. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, may have views about various office holders from time to time that may be somewhat different from my own, but let him not chide me about the issue with regard to the rugby match on Saturday, because I am Welsh and therefore in the very happy position of not being tangled up in that particular collision, although I am greatly interested in it, I might add.
	The provisions will create the clear obligation on a Secretary of State to look at posts that need to be reserved because of the sensitivity and responsibility that they involve. In doing that, we are not doing anything different from the other countries in the European Community that likewise have a clear idea of the posts that are of high enough significance to require to be reserved for their nationals because of security considerations and the safety of the state. So it is all one on that matter. The noble Lord has the right to chide me on my lack of clarity or even overdue clarity at Question Time a couple of weeks ago, so I reassure him on that point.
	Of course, these issues are of great importance, but the motive behind the order is not in any way, shape or form to truckle to our European obligations. It is not a motive forced on us from elsewhere—very far from that, although we are keen to observe our European obligations. It is our motivation to try to improve the quality of our Civil Service when we saw an inordinate number of posts—largely in one department, as it happens—entirely restricted from any application from a foreign national, simply because the rules derived from a time that I described in my long historical analysis at the beginning of the debate, for which I apologise. We seek to rationalise that to make the Civil Service better and more competent and give people fair opportunities—the same opportunities that we expect British nationals to have if they reside and work in European countries to deploy their talents if they seek jobs in the civil service. Our motivation is to do that while bearing in mind exactly the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, and the other two noble Lords who contributed to the debate: we should have due regard to reciprocity and fairness as well as to the significant posts on which our nation puts great responsibility. Those posts are the reserved posts—I emphasise that the decision taking on that is the responsibility of the Secretary of State. The order is clear on the criteria for those posts, and I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, in particular in that regard.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: There are two amendments in this group: Amendments Nos. 137ZZZA and 137XA. Amendment No. 137ZZZA deals with the independent reviewer point and Amendment No. 137XA deals with allowing an ombudsman with a report of potential misconduct issued to an approved regulator to require a report back. I say that only for clarification of the groupings. I shall respond to both amendments because they raise distinct issues—although they are clearly suitably grouped together.
	I shall start with the independent reviewer question, which my noble friend rightly raised. We do not think that it is necessary that an "independent reviewer" be established to decide whether an ombudsman has made the right decision in not making a report to an approved regulator. The ombudsman does not have the discretion to decide, even though it appears that there may have been professional misconduct, not to report it to the relevant approved regulator: there is a duty on the ombudsman to make such a report whenever the ombudsman is of the opinion that there is, has been or may have been such misconduct.
	The reviewer would not be able to review a decision not to make such a report but would be reviewing whether the ombudsman could reasonably be of the opinion, on the information available, that there was nothing to suggest misconduct. The purpose would be to secure reconsideration of that opinion, and potentially the making of a report.
	But there is, by design, nothing in the Bill to prevent an individual complainant who feels that there has been misconduct of which the relevant regulator should be aware from raising the issue with the approved regulator directly or drawing this specifically to the attention of an ombudsman. The problem of an independent reviewer is that we would be adding an expensive and potentially cumbersome way of achieving much the same result.
	I hope that noble Lords are reassured that, because of the importance of reporting misconduct issues to approved regulators, there are various safeguards in place to ensure that ombudsmen honour their statutory duty. First, there is provision for a co-operative relationship with approved regulators in Clause 141. Secondly, it is envisaged that the OLC will follow the best practice recommended by the British and Irish Ombudsman Association of having mechanisms for internal quality assurance in place to deal with complaints about the service provided by the OLC. Thirdly, the operation of the ombudsmen scheme will be monitored by the OLC, through information and statistics collected through those internal quality assurance mechanisms. Ultimately, the OLC is accountable to the LSB, which will monitor the performance of the OLC.
	We think that we have captured what my noble friend seeks to achieve with an independent reviewer within a duty and responsibility that will fall to the ombudsman. On that basis, he may feel able to withdraw his amendment.
	On Amendment No. 137XA, Clause 140 allows an ombudsman, where he has reported a potential misconduct issue to an approved regulator, to require a report back on the action that has been taken. In certain circumstances, it will be very important that approved regulators report back to the OLC on that action. My noble friend's amendment would require approved regulators to report back, with reasons for any action taken, in every case. I do not accept that that is necessary. The OLC is not intended to undertake a general oversight role in relation to approved regulators, although it will be able to report to the LSB any serious or persistent failures on the part of approved regulators. Oversight of the approved regulators and any necessary action will be provided by the LSB.
	As the clause stands, whether a report is necessary is a matter that is left to the ombudsman's discretion. I think that this is right. To require a report in every case would be onerous and expensive and would increase the cost of the OLC and the administration of approved regulators, and those additional costs would ultimately increase the cost of legal services to consumers. So, while we accept that it is important that ombudsmen have the power to require a report, and the additional power to report to the LSB any serious or persistent failures, for the reasons that I have given I do not think that the amendment is necessary and I hope that it will be withdrawn.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will have seen Amendment No. 139E after Clause 155, where we propose that the current Legal Services Ombudsman should be renamed,
	"the Independent Reviewer of Legal Services Complaints",
	which is exactly what he asks for in Amendment No. 137ZZZA. Just as I support him in his amendments, I hope that he will support me in mine. We believe that an internal review, which is thrown around all the time, is a very unsatisfactory way of resolving disputes. It will mean going back to the same people asking them to say that they have made an error, which is always very difficult to do. At the same time, the independent reviewer whom we seek is a person who will save the expensive judicial review, fulfil the role currently carried out by the Legal Services Ombudsman and will be entirely in accord with the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I notice that our amendment is supported by Which?, an organisation with which I believe the noble Lord has a connection.

Lord Whitty: The amendment is intended to put what I think is now the latest government thinking about better regulation into the Bill: that representational sanctions are as important and, often, have a greater effect in terms of both retribution and deterrence than financial and administrative sanctions. The Government recently accepted the recommendations of the Macrory report: not only that there should be an alternative approach to sanctions in total but that regulators should disclose to key stakeholders and the wider public when and against whom enforcement action has been taken.
	My noble friend may well argue that the Bill does not preclude that. That is certainly true, but it is also important that that is seen as part of the armoury of the new regulatory structure. I do not apologise for repeating the statistic that more than 33 per cent of all complaints to the Law Society under the old system emanated from 7 per cent of solicitors' firms, yet neither the profession nor potential clients know the names of those firms which undermine the credibility and good standing of the rest of the profession.
	It is therefore important that the regulator, the OLC, should be able proactively and explicitly to name those who are subject to such sanction. I would not make that an absolute requirement. The OLC would have to decide whether it used that power in particular circumstances. The power would be primarily to deal with persistent offenders: the 7 per cent of firms who are creating such a bad image for the rest of the profession among the public. It would use it in that context, not necessarily when a single offence had been committed.
	It is important, however, that this principle of "reputational sanction", if you like, is in the Bill—there is a very good National Consumer Council pamphlet on reputation and regulation, which I commend to your Lordships. In this profession, probably more than most, it is a very important aspect of how the public view particular solicitors' firms. It is, therefore, important that it is registered in the Bill. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I hope to steer a course between the different views here, and to support what the noble and learned Baroness has said. It is not appropriate for the OLC to assume a naming and shaming role. There are issues, of course, about human rights and data protection, but it is not the overall purpose of the complaints scheme, and would ultimately undermine the objectives of the scheme. My noble friend Lord Whitty was looking, specifically I think, for what the noble and learned Baroness suggested, which is that where it might be considered appropriate, that would be available. This is not, actually, about the acceptance of the amendment, because the powers in the Bill enable what my noble friend is looking for; the OLC has that power.
	It is explicitly precluded in the legislation, under Clause 147(1), from publishing the identity of a complainant, but not the identity of a respondent. The effect of legislative drafting, with which my noble friend is very familiar, is that the OLC has the power to identify respondents in its reports. We do not need to add anything to the Bill therefore because Clause 147(2) states that except for the complainant, anyone can be mentioned. That is a much better of way of dealing with this than trying to set out the alternative, which is to provide that in certain circumstances they could be named.
	As I have indicated, in specific circumstances that will be appropriate. As the noble and learned Baroness and my noble friend have said, that is right and proper, but it is not about naming and shaming or putting forward anyone in circumstances where it would be inappropriate to do so. That point was made clearly by the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Kingsland. That is not what this is about. However, I agree that there will be circumstances in the public interest where in that context the ability to be able to name someone is important and the Bill allows for that, which is precisely what my noble friend seeks. On that basis, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Whitty: I am happy to withdraw the amendment in its present form. However, the formulation proposed by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has proposed would be an appropriate power for the OLC in these circumstances and one which I think the Government will seek following the Macrory report in many other areas of regulation. It is a discretionary power and it is to be left to the OLC itself to decide whether it would be appropriate. If it is to be restricted to where the balance of opinion suggests, to those complaints which have been upheld—the area I am mainly concerned about—I could envisage a situation where it was in the interests of lawyers to have on the public record the fact that they had been cleared of a mischievous complaint, but let us exclude that if we want to. I am concerned with the situation where the OLC is able to publish the names of those against whom a complaint has been upheld. If my noble friend says that it is already possible, that is fine in one sense except that in this new era of reputational sanctions being available to regulators, it might be helpful to include it in the Bill. However, I accept what she has said and we will take it from there. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 139G, 151A, 151B, 151D, 151E, 152, 153 and 155A. Amendments Nos. 152 and 153 have been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. We concur completely with those amendments. The noble Lord simply got there faster than I was able to, so with his permission I shall speak to his amendments with the government amendments.
	The principle behind this group of amendments is to implement recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its report on the Bill. The committee specifically recommended that some provisions should be subject to greater parliamentary scrutiny either by making them by statutory instrument or by laying orders under the affirmative procedure where currently they are dealt with under the negative procedure. In addition, the amendments limit the scope of two of the order-making powers, as suggested by the committee. Amendments Nos. 137A, 139G, 151A, 151B, 151D, 151E and 155A give effect to recommendations made in the report, and, as I have indicated, I agree with Amendments Nos. 152 and 153 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
	Amendments Nos. 137A and 139G give effect to the committee's recommendation that the powers in Clauses 149(3)(g) and 161(3)(g), which are analogous to the powers in Section 86 of the Pensions Act 2004, should either be amended so as to be subject to the same restrictions as those powers or be made subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The committee's preference was for the former action and that is the approach taken by the amendments. Clause 149(3)(g) confers a power by order to prescribe additional persons to whom restricted information may be disclosed by the OLC, an ombudsman or a member of staff exercising duly delegated functions and the purpose for which it may be disclosed. Clause 161(3)(g) makes mirroring provision for disclosure by the LSB or a person exercising delegated functions. The amendments in each case restrict the power so that only persons having regulatory functions may be prescribed.
	Amendments Nos. 151A and 151B give effect to the committee's recommendation that the statutory instruments under Section 83(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, which is inserted by Clause 176, and under Section 275(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, inserted by Clause 177, should be made by the affirmative rather than the negative procedure. The order-making powers under these sections give the Lord Chancellor powers to require registers of trade mark attorneys and patent attorneys to be kept by persons specified in the order and are currently subject to negative procedure. We accept the committee's recommendation, as amending the person who keeps the registers of trade mark attorneys and patent attorneys is a significant power to exercise and one where a high level of parliamentary scrutiny is appropriate. As such, Amendments Nos. 151A and 151B seek to change the negative procedure presently set out to the affirmative procedure. We agree with the Delegated Powers Committee that this is the appropriate procedure for the exercise of such powers.
	Amendments Nos. 151D, 151E and 155A give effect to the committee's recommendation that rules made by the board under Clauses 36(3), 93(3) and 166 should be made by statutory instrument subject to the negative procedure. The clauses that I have identified contain important rule-making powers, relating to the maximum levels of financial penalties—in respect of approved regulators and the regulation of licensed bodies—and the levy rules. Of course, these rules have a potential financial impact on approved regulators, so I accept the committee's view that it is important that they are subject to an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny.
	It is important that it should be the board, as the oversight regulator, that takes responsibility for preparing these rules. We have therefore provided that it will be the board itself that makes the order, in accordance with the Statutory Instruments Act 1946. However, it is still appropriate that the approval of the Secretary of State of the sponsoring department should be given to the rules before they are scrutinised by Parliament and made by order. We believe that, together, these amendments achieve the additional safeguards that the Delegated Powers Committee thought necessary in respect of financial rules.
	As I said earlier, I am happy to agree that the Bill should be amended as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in his Amendments Nos. 152 and 153. We agree that greater parliamentary scrutiny of the use of this power is needed than the Bill originally provided for. I trust that the Committee will agree to these amendments being made, and I beg to move.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am grateful that the Government have accepted Amendments Nos. 152 and 153, which we tabled. The Government's attitude indicates the considerable good work done by the Delegated Powers Committee. I congratulate that committee and its Clerks on their constant observance of legislation as it comes through and on drawing to our attention matters as important as this.

Lord Whitty: My intervention on this amendment provides an opportunity for me to give notice that I will not object to Clause 154 standing part of the Bill. I tabled my intention to oppose the clause—the general provisions of which I approve—in order to probe whether it also covers the potential for redress in relation to malpractice issues.
	For the consumer—the client—it can be obscure on occasion whether what they are complaining about is an issue of professional malpractice or a failure of service, which is appropriate for the OLC. They may take one course or the other, or both. It is therefore important that issues of professional malpractice, which are dealt with by the front-line regulators, are also subject to the same possibilities of redress. As to the tragic miners' case to which my noble friend Lady Henig referred, and which was eloquently spoken to by my noble friend Lord Lofthouse at Second Reading, if we look at it through the punters' eyes, it is not absolutely clear whether that is an issue of malpractice or one of failure of service and incompetence.
	I support the objectives of my noble friend's amendment. I hope that the Minister will clarify whether the Government consider that the Bill as it stands adequately provides for redress in cases of professional malpractice.